> So I like Arvel and Wietse's approach, say to do it but don't try to
> define it since any definition would be wrong. Other thoughts?
I'm confused. Arvel and Wietse's approach seems to make perfect sense to
me, but some other very smart people who I also have a lot of respect for
are disagreeing with them...so I have to assume that I'm missing something.
Some people (including me) would prefer that the NXDOMAIN check be left
as it currently is - a required piece of the ADSP algorithm. There are
others who think it shouldn't be part of the algorithm at all but should
be replaced by advisory text stating that the check is recommended. All
parties understand the importance that the check be performed.
A compromise proposal has been laid out which is to remove the NXDOMAIN
step from the algorithm but add text defining ADSP as applicable only to
domains which actually exist in DNS. This removes the need for ADSP to
specify how (or by what means) such a check is determined, does not
introduce normative language, addresses all the objections yet put
forth, and still provides a basis for believing that a check will be done.
What we need at this point is for the chairs to call for a straw-poll on
whether the NXDOMAIN check should be removed from the ADSP algorithm in
the first place. I'd personally like to know where the numbers are for
both sides in this debate. If we're deadlocked over this NXDOMAIN issue
then the way forward is consensus on the compromise proposal. This is
the only way forward that I can see and this issue is really the last
thing holding up the spec.
Arvel
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html